Secrets behind successful multiplayer - part 2

Welcome back!

I’d like to build on the idea stated in the third principle and go deeper. Further along the arrow...

Identifying the...everything! Not only perks need to be idenitifed.

In CoD or Battlefield the only good way to differentiate players is to point at them with your crosshair and read the text That I consider a problem. I believe this should rely on character models more than text screens. TF2 excels in this regard. Different character models. Distinct colours.

This may be a relatively minor issue, but in the games mentioned above it is hard to identify precisely which weapon your opponents are using. It’s not only the visual cues that matter, it’s the audible cues as well. In both these games most weapons of one type like, say, assault rifles sound exactly like one another. You can watch some videos and see for yourself. I stated that this isn’t a huge annoyance due to the fact that weapon classes sound distinct and the weapons within those classes differ minimally.

Under the hood .Those who like to think deeply would have already realized that ,no matter which game, players still have some “secrets”. Differences that other players cannot identify. These are – the mouse/analog sensitivity, the hardware they’re using , even the audiovisual settings .These can contribute a lot to a player’s success. We can ignore the topic of sensitivity, as it’s mostly a matter of what the player’s comfortable with. And it’s a thing players must decide on their own, not on the initiative of the game itself. The higher you go in sensitivity, the better you are at turning fast, but , at the same time, you’re worse at carefully placing your shots. When you lower the sensitivity, the opposite happens. One at the cost of the other. Thus, it isn’t necessary to have this identified. (Though I’d be interested what would happen if it were identifiable. Personally, I think it would only make the game better)

Optimization . Now that is some serious business. If someone has a better graphics card, the game will , surprise, run better on his computer. That’s why I consider a game must be well optimized to run on a lot of different rigs. That’s what Valve’s Source engine excels at. But there’s more to hardware – what also matters is which exact mouse , keyboard, gamepad, monitor, sound system and headphones someone is using. Because these things can herald major in-game advantages without any compromises. As an example, some gaming mice have the option to regulate sensitivity in real-time. Some mice are wireless, others are not. Now this is a factor that is entirely out of the game’s hands. It’s where the gamer must contribute. But having a convenient way of identifying this difference would only improve the experience.

Audio/visual settings.. I remember once setting Blacklight : Retribution on higher settings than I would usually . The frame rate was still stable and the game was prettier, but this also activated some unwanted lens flare effects. I think developers must really take a look on all the different graphics settings and make sure that they give exactly the right amount of compromises and advantages.
Like ,say, when a game’s graphics are set to lower settings, the clarity should be down, because the frame rate will, naturally, go up. Think about it.

Monetization models. Again, following the arrow, we get to the payment model. To be honest, I’m not quite settled on where to put this on the arrow, as deeply prioritizing is no easy task, but I’m pretty confident it’d be around here. The free-to-play, or, F2P model has become popular in the recent years. Let’s review the term “pay to win”. How can a game be pay to win? Well ,if by means of payment a player gets direct advantages over his competition, then the game is P2W. Imagine having the option to buy perks in CoD prior to unlocking them. I think the right philosophy for Free to Play, the “True” F2P model , in my opinion is one that offers you more VARIETY of possible experiences. Like , imagine that, in a balanced game, say, TF2 , the sniper class was locked and you had to buy it in order to experience it in action. This wouldn’t give you any advantages , it would only give you a different way of enjoying the game. Same thing goes if devs give players the ability to buy cosmetic items.

Developer support .Voyaging further through the depths of the ocean of thoughts , into the realms of knowledge... we get to the consecutive dot . This element is different from others. It’s an element that builds upon the values of developers as people. I’m talking about developer support. How well a developer reacts to the evolving player base, to the evolving needs and requirements, the feedback, how well a developer adds some “meat” to their game to keep things fresh and exciting, to keep the game away from being simply a game and becoming an experience. Killzone Shadow Fall wasn’t all too successful at launch, but developers provided unprecedented support. Recently, with the announcement of Killzone Intercept ( a 4 player online co-op component) , one of them stated : "We're getting to a point in the industry that most studios see the launch of a game as a starting point more than 'we're done now' “ (Source- Eurogamer) You see, while this IS undoubtedly true, some developers , whom I won’t even have to mention, use this “starting point” as an opportunity to “milk the cow”, the customer. To get his money. There is a certain balance that needs to be achieved . It’s commonly called the P/PC balance , wherein “P” stands for “Product” (money, in this case) and “PC” stands for “Product Capable”( the player) . Some devs simply like to focus more on the product. That is a problem. One thing you should really applaud GG for is that they made all the PvP DLC maps free. This is not only the generous, and , more importantly, the correct thing to do, but it also doesn’t divide the community, which was an issue in Killzone 3.

Engagement. And we leap to the next dot. Now , as we’re progressing, I’m not really all too sure sequentially where to place the elements, to be honest. Here we enter the realm of player psychology. The element I want to discuss is immersion. I recall once watching a TED talk titled “7 ways video games engage the brain”. The speaker was discussing player engagement and stated that it is a product of wanting and liking. The steps above will ensure the game is fun to play, thus the “liking” is achieved. However, players also need good goals – unlocks, achievements , cosmetic stuff, etc. This is where the “wanting” part comes in. Developers need to ensure that the prizes are attractive. In Team Fortress 2 , these prizes are weapons , gadgets, masks, taunts… and it all works splendidly well. And why is engagement important? In this “phase”, the player is completely “in” the experience. The focus level is over a magnitude bigger and so is the enjoyment level. This is an absolute must. And, frankly, for that matter, immersion doesn’t necessarily come from “realism” or “authenticity” or the number of freaking effects you can fit on a single screen. Drop the bull , developers, it’s time to grow up.

Reception. Are there any more reasons that contribute to a game’s success? Yes. Let’s look at a factor that is generally outside the frames of gameplay. That is word of mouth. It would be extremely nice for a game to have some streaming tools or something like Theatre Mode ( which was present in Halo 3/ Reach and, as far as I know, Black Ops 1 & 2 . ). That would make sharing videos far, far easier, meaning that more and better videos would make their way to the internet and , logically, more people would know about the game.

Power to the user.Another factor I’d like to note that can improve the longevity of a game is modification. Giving players the power to easily create high quality mods . Modding, however, is somewhat like a double edged sword. On the positive note, it makes players more involved in the game, makes them feel more in control, express their creativity and possibly create something amazing. (Counter Strike, DotA, Killing Floor were all results of modding) The only negative aspect of this is that games don’t usually have quality control. I think this should also be present, since for every good mod, there’s also a very bad one. With no quality control, the experience is uneven at best.

The heart & soul . Another great reason can be personality and sense of identity. This is entirely a non-technical aspect of a game, but it shows that it can also contribute to a game’s longevity. This isn’t really necessary, again, but it can definitely help. I remember once reading about a not-so-long ago announced game called Outrise ( which I suggest you check out) It’s a PvP game where up to 16 players are pit against a powerful player-controlled machine. I was reading about the class system, specifically about the sniper class. The devs were stating that their classes weren’t simply cannon fodder with functions, but fully- developed characters, so that the players could relate to them more easily. Then it came to my mind - I realized that this is exactly what Team Fortress 2 is doing – the classes aren’t just some random character models given functions, no. They’re characters with actual identities and stories behind them. Even the equipment has history. It just adds depth to the game and makes it more likeable. Everything in World of Warcraft holds a story to be told. Again, it’s not really necessary, as some games fare well even without it – Counter Strike, as an example.

I think it would be wise to finish here. I hope it was a genuinely good, thought provoking read and gave you some valuable new insights. If you don’t agree with some of the things I stated, be brave to state your own opinion. I’d be glad to listen. The article may end here, but the epic search for truth behind multiplayer shall go on.